...If a picture is successful is successful. If it had been taken with better equipment and this is obvious then it is not the same picture anymore. "It's another fact".

Great Bustard wrote:

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

By the way, it's clear that many would benefit from the operation of better equipment, for example, faster / more accurate AF, in that it would get them the shot that lesser equipment might miss. However, this poll is about photos that were successfully captured. How many people do you feel would produce photos that were more successful if they had been captured with better equipment?

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

By the way, it's clear that many would benefit from the operation of better equipment, for example, faster / more accurate AF, in that it would get them the shot that lesser equipment might miss. However, this poll is about photos that were successfully captured. How many people do you feel would produce photos that were more successful if they had been captured with better equipment?

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

In 2013 I would pay more for (or only buy) the D800/pro lens version. I do buy one or more photos during most long trips. The photogs are pros and only seem to use Nikon or Canon FF cameras and good lenses. Not a one has used anything else since 2000 to my recollection. (They went to digital about 9 or 10 years ago and back to FF bodies in many cases later.)

I use a 600D but I find that the lens, more often than not, makes a bigger difference than a "mere" 18 MP. My 60 mm f/2.8 EF-s Canon macro (while still non-pro) is sharper than any other lens near that focal length that I own. I mostly use non-pro APS-size zooms but I know that they are not as sharp. Unfortunately, after paying for 4-week cruises and such, I am perpetually camera/lens poor. And, my wife does not want to be a FF lens bearer and security guard.

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

By the way, it's clear that many would benefit from the operation of better equipment, for example, faster / more accurate AF, in that it would get them the shot that lesser equipment might miss. However, this poll is about photos that were successfully captured. How many people do you feel would produce photos that were more successful if they had been captured with better equipment?

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

The problem I'd say is that 99% of the time were only looking at web resolution shots, the advantages of something like the D800 will become much more obvious in larger prints.

At Web resolution I'd say that the gear most likely to have an impact on someones pictures is the range and aperture of the lens in question, a tripod and filters.

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Obviously the majority of photos are taken with a 'phone camera'. Now the marginal 'cost' of having a 'camera' when you have a 'phone' already is very low - say US$20. So if you paid only US$20 for your camera then if you post say 100 photos you dont expect a very high return in terms of appreciation.

Now if you have a US$2,000 full frame, in order to justify the cost you actually need a lot more in terms of admittedly a very 'intangible' appreciation from your 100 photos. Doubly so, because if you post garbage with your US$2k camera people will think you are a complete fool and your return might actually be negative.

Essentially if you paid 'nothing' for your camera your barrier to post photos is incredibly low. Aperson with an expensive full frame which cost him a lot must post photos to justify his purchase.

Essentially my argument is pretty simple - it is along the lines that I suspect that owners of say a Nikon 800e take a lot of lousy photos (including foodies and selfies) but they simply dont post them.

For 1200 pixel wide web postings, most modern digital cameras are more than adequate.

Subject, composition and lighting are always THE most important aspects of the success or lack of success of a given photo. And it doesn't make all that much difference if that photo was taken with a Phase One, D800, Entry-level DSLR or P&S. Compelling images can be made any camera.

That said, high end FF DSLRs allow you to get better IQ in less light, just as the pocketable size of a P&Ss allow you to get images in places where DSLRs aren't allowed or are simply too large to be practical.

I believe we are at the point, technology wise, that the effectiveness of a photo simply CAN'T be degraded by technology issues.

Not quite.. refer to by comment about "texture mearing", below. Some cameras have innate limitations..

Now we could ruin a photo by using the wrong equipment. But quality equipment is available in all price ranges and even from the humblest equipment manufacturer. The tech really IS that good.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that if your photos suck, it isn't the equipment at fault, it's you.

Sort of - but you can take a lovely photo with a bridge camera (pinhead sensor) that is less than it should be due to the texture smearing - this would be improved with a more capable camera.

I agree that virtually any camera will take a decent picture if you know how to use it - but certain camera have limitations that do affect the picture output.

It could still be argued that it's the photographer - using a tool that's not suitable for the job.Like using a pinbhole camera for a fashion shoot.. pinhole cameras are fun and have a place, but I'd not use one for an important shot of a local Manor House..

Sometimes I take a photo of castles or ruins with my wife's Panasonic FZ 150 - it's OK but it often smears the textures.

This is not often a problem to be as i use the pix as record shots of an area to return to - but sometimes I just go back and take the photo with my 5D2 - it produces vastly better images of the same scene.

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

At least based on the pictures I've found appealing enough to buy or hang in my home, the equipment used seems completely irrelevant. One of my favorites is a wonderfully atmospheric photo of an unattended anvil and forge. It was by a local artist and taken at a local pioneer-themed park/museum. Turns out the camera used was an older, 5 megapixel Panasonic compact. When I've attended photography art exhibits and spoken with the artists present, it turns out that there is a wide range of equipment used and a wide range of photographic knowledge held, from those knowing practically nothing about their camera other than making sure the mode dial is on auto, to those with great expertise on seemingly everything photography-related. But there was no correlation between the equipment/knowledge of the artist and the appeal of the images each chose to hang (or that was juried into the exhibit).

Perhaps not as much here on this photo site, but I do see a lot of phone camera and cheap point and shoot cameras with grainy and NR smeared looking images that could look better even with a slightly larger/better sensor and brighter lens such as on a camera like an LX7. It doesn't necessarily make the composition better. A bad shot is a bad shot.

Perhaps not as much here on this photo site, but I do see a lot of phone camera and cheap point and shoot cameras with grainy and NR smeared looking images that could look better even with a slightly larger/better sensor and brighter lens such as on a camera like an LX7. It doesn't necessarily make the composition better. A bad shot is a bad shot.

Great Bustard wrote:What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

The difference between entry level DSLR and D800 is not image quality, it is image size.

There is a huge difference in image quality of a cell phone and entry level DSLR

Assuming a reasonable level of competency on the part of the photographer, I think that any improvement, if there is any, could be achieved with better lenses. But it's the old story of better equipment will not make a poor photographer a better photographer.

-- hide signature --

lee uk.There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Although the way the question is phrased might have more of an influence on the answer than you intended. If it's successfully captured, isn't it a success?

Which of these would count as more successful under your question

- a photo with blown highlights that might have been saved with better equipment

- a photo that might have had better subject isolation or more pleasing boken

- a photo that would have looked better with a wider angle lens or a longer lens

- a photo that would have looked better if shot on a tripod or with better image stabilization

- a photo that would have been sharper if shot at a higher shutter speed

In other words, what type of IQ improvement are you thinking of?

By "more successful" I mean would have sold whereas the lower IQ photo did not, would have sold for more money than the lower IQ photo, would have been published but the lower IQ photo wouldn't, would have placed higher in a photo contest than the lower IQ photo, etc.

Of course, it goes without saying that I am talking about the exact same photo, just one captured with a camera that delivered "higher IQ" than another.

Great Bustard wrote:What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

The difference between entry level DSLR and D800 is not image quality, it is image size.

It is image quality, but the differences may not matter, or even be apparent, until the photo is displayed past a certain size (although many aspects of IQ may well show up in smaller prints as well).

There is a huge difference in image quality of a cell phone and entry level DSLR

Sure. But how about the difference from an entry level DSLR or mirrorless and a D800? How often would the differences matter?